He got a physical object(s)? Yes, but this is quite misleading. A state of being? Kind of. An emotional state? No. A statement of praise? No. An answer? Kind of. A gift? No. An idea? No. A person? No. A title? No (*grin*).

Would most people consider what he got to be positive? This. negative? neutral? Did he consider it to be positive? negative? In a certain sense, yes. neutral? In another sense this.

Was it positive just for "him"? No. It was *not* positive for him. Can we call "him" Peter? Sure.

Was there another person who was meant to get what Peter got? Yesish or Yope. If so, was there just one such person? No. H?A?M? All H and M, almost all A. Relevant? Yes. Was (or would ) "it" be positive also for him/her? No.

Was he in the military at the time of the puzzle statement? No. Just prior to getting whatever he got? No. Was he affiliated with the military in a civilian capacity? No or irrelevant.

Is what he got something that would affect someone in the military in a certain way? Yes. But that affected him in a way that had nothing to do with the military? Yesish. Insofar as it affected him at all.

In the military - as a professional? Or on an obligatory military service? Who? Peter is not in the military, and it is only possible that he was a soldier before. Also, most people who get "it" are not in the military. However, what's relevant in general is obligatory military service.

Is the draft relevant? Yes. Is he in a country where everyone serves in the military for a while when they're young? Yes for svv of "everyone".

Does what he get make him excused from military service in some way? This. Make it so that he has to go to the military?

Does he get a clean bill of health? No.

Did he get "it" rightfully? Or by mistake? This.

Are you saying that what he got would have more sense/be more useful for someone being in the military, while it is worthless for someone who is not? No. Again, most people who get this are not in the military.

WOuld the people who get "it" and are not in the military feel about "it" similarly as Peter did? So, no.

Was Peter drafted for the military? did he avoid being drafted? did he not have to serve although being drafted? Was someone else drafted? Did someone have to be released from military? because he was drafted by mistake? Was a woman drafted because she was taken for a man? Are other people besides Peter relevant? Relatives? Friends? People in the military? Is Peter married? Does he have children? Relevant?

Was Peter drafted for the military? No. did he avoid being drafted? Yope. did he not have to serve although being drafted? He was not drafted.Was someone else drafted? No (besides those usually being drafted). Did someone have to be released from military? No (besides those usually being released). because he was drafted by mistake? No.Was a woman drafted because she was taken To a man? No.Are other people besides Peter relevant? Yes.Relatives? Friends? People in the military? No.Is Peter married? Does he have children? Relevant? Both questions are irrelevant.

Was he mistaken for someone else? Mistaken for being a member of a group he was not? Or mistaken for not being a member of a group? Did what he got have negative consequences for his: Health? Morale? Mood? Reputation? Work? Career? Private life? Privacy? Future? Other people in his vicinity (family, coworkers, neighbors etc)? Did it have any positive consequences at all for him? If so, was it the same positive consequences as the other people got?

Was he mistaken for someone else? No. Mistaken for being a member of a group he was not? Yes. Or mistaken for not being a member of a group? Yes.Did what he got have negative consequences for his: Health? Morale? Mood? This. Reputation? Work? Career? Private life? Privacy? Future? Other people in his vicinity (family, coworkers, neighbors etc)? Did it have any positive consequences at all for him? No. If so, was it the same positive consequences as the other people got? FA.

Is this about eligibility for drafting? He got a notion that he wasn't eligible for drafting? and while he didn't actually want to be drafted, he didn't like to be excluded from the group of eligible? especially not for the given reason? homo-sexuality? illness? dysfunction?

Is this about eligibility for drafting? No. He got a notion that he wasn't eligible for drafting? So, no. and while he didn't actually want to be drafted, he didn't like to be excluded from the group of eligible? So, irrelevant. especially not for the given reason? So, FA. homo-sexuality? illness? dysfunction? Nothing of these is relevant.

Was his bad mood a direct effect of what he recieved? Or because it implied something else? Because it implied that he (was? wasn't?) a member of a certain group? Was he mistaken for belonging to group B instead of group A? Are either of these groups small (less than 1% of the population)? Are they exclusive to each other (i.e. you can only belong to either A or B)? Did he get offended/insulted?

Was his bad mood a direct effect of what he recieved? Noish. Or because it implied something else? Yesish. Because it implied that he (was? wasn't?) a member of a certain group? No. Was he mistaken for belonging to group B instead of group A? Yes. Are either of these groups small (less than 1% of the population)? Yes, but... Are they exclusive to each other (i.e. you can only belong to either A or B)? Yesish.Did he get offended/insulted? Noish.

Does he belong to group A? to group B? neither? Does belonging to group B imply not to belong to group B? Is this the reason for his bad mood? Is belonging to group A or B something everyone can decide himself? is it an consequence of one's decisions? (like: living in a particular place, working in a particular profession?) is it decided by other people? decided by birth? just by chance? Is one of the groups the army? part of the army? Are all members in group A adult? male? same questions for group B?

Does he belong to group A? This. to group B? neither? Does belonging to group B imply not to belong to group B? One of these should be an A? It somehow depends on the definition of the groups, but I answer it Yes. Is this the reason for his bad mood? No.Is belonging to group A or B something everyone can decide himself? No. is it an consequence of one's decisions? Yes. (like: living in a particular place This decision is relevant for group A., working in a particular profession? This decision is somehow relevant for group B.) is it decided by other people? Decisions of other people are somehow relevant for both groups. decided by birth? This is relevant for group B. just by chance? No.Is one of the groups the army? No. part of the army? No.Are all members in group A adult? No. male? No. same questions for group B? All of them are male, most of them are adult.

Did he get an award of some sort? No. Or recognition of some sort? Yes. For something he hadn't done? But no. Not recognition _for_ something but recognition _as_ something. But members of group B did do? As something members of group B were (or claimed to be, depending on how exactly you define the groups).

Is any of the two groups (or part of it): immigrants? Group B is part of this group. foreigners?Group B is part of this group. expats? Well, from the perspective of the country of origin, immigrants to another country are expats... gays? criminals? No to rest.

Was he accidentally identified as a citizen? No. What he got would only make sense for a citizen, however. Even though he was not? He was not a citizen. Which lots of immigrants want to be? True, but not relevant for the puzzle. But it made him appear to be eligible for compulsory military service? No. Again, it would only make sense if he was in principle eligible for being drafted.

Was he told he would not be drafted? Yesish. Because the work he was doing as a civilian was more valuable for the country? No. But since he was not a citizen he wouldn't have been drafted anyway? Yes. And there's more to it.

So the people in group B share: that they're male? something related to their profession? and something that is decided by birth? Are the people in group B citizens of that country? Do they have a profession for which only citizens are accepted? government officials? members of parliament? police? judges? university professors? Or a professional sports team? Does membership in group B imply that one is not eligible for drafting? if so: because of the profession? Would the LTPF list of reasons for not being drafted help? (married? in education? living with children? doing or having done service in police/fire brigade/civil defence/development aid? female? too old? too young? engaged with the draft officer's daughter? priest/parson/vicar/deacon?)

So the people in group B share: that they're male? Yes. something related to their profession? Only in a negative way. and something that is decided by birth? Yes, insofar as birth is relevant for citizenship.Are the people in group B citizens of that country? Yes.Do they have a profession for which only citizens are accepted? No, the only relevant thing is that only citizens can be drafted. government officials? members of parliament? police? judges? university professors? Or a professional sports team? So, no.Does membership in group B imply that one is not eligible for drafting? It depends on the exact definition of group B. if so: because of the profession? No.Would the LTPF list of reasons for not being drafted help? if it is comprehensive, yes. (married? in education? living with children? doing or having done service in police/fire brigade/civil defence/development aid? This is closest but not really close. female? too old? too young? engaged with the draft officer's daughter? priest/parson/vicar/deacon?)

Communism relevant? political focus of neighboring countries? national security? These factors were relevant as reasons for the existence of the draft and had an influence on the decision of people whether to ask for what he got. No further relevance of them.

Did he wish to be a registered conscientious objector? No. Is it normally difficult to be recognized as such? For some it is. And this is why others desire it (because they get out of military service)? Yes.

Was he offered asylum? No or not yet. Could he have been? Possibly. Was he not offered it because of some regulation or political problem? Possibly, exact reason irrelevant. And to get around this he was named a conscientious objector? No. Was he a defector? No.

So he's annoyed that he was registered as a CO. Because he didn't want to be? Because he wanted asylum instead? Because it is redundant? Because he wanted to be in the army eventually? Is there more to find out in this puzzle?

So he's annoyed that he was registered as a CO. Because he didn't want to be? No. Because he wanted asylum instead? Yes, and... Because it is redundant? No. Because he wanted to be in the army eventually? No.Is there more to find out in this puzzle? Yes. The reason why he got recognition as a CO without having applied for it.

Were the others who asked for him to get the sentence hostile or friendly to him? FA. Nobody asked for him to be recognised as a CO. "many others asked for" just means that, at that time, many people asked for recognition as a CO.

Is there some particular benefit to being registered as a conscientious objector that he needed? No.

I was confused by your response to this: "He got the "sentence" (in a court from a judge) that many others asked for him to get?" Sorry. I was wrong there. So *BLOOPER* alert: He got a court decision saying he is recognised as a CO. This was what many others were asking for themselves at that time.

Was his intention at starting the entire procedure just to help himself, Assume this. or would someone else benefit from him having asylum?

Marriage laws relevant? No. In the US getting married or joining the military are considered good routes to being allowed to stay in the country, and a step on the path to citizenship. So in the US you can join the army without being a citizen first? I didn't know that. As for the puzzle: watch out for FAs. Note that he didn't demand recognition as a CO.

Cold War relevant? Reunification of Germany relevant? No. Protests of some sort relevant? To the rest: Only as a background which explains that the draft exists and many people demand recognition as a CO. Nothing new to be learned there.

Ah, so it would work anywhere a draft is common. Did the draft itself have something to do with his request for asylum -- For example, could he have asked for it through a National Service organization? Or through a business connection? Or joined the church?

Is Peter an East German in West Germany? Ost-Berliner in West Berlin? Vice versa? Trying not to get sent home? Are his reasons for asking asylum relevant? The reasons for making him a CO instead?

Was he trying to join the army? Trying to avoid it? Trying to exploit a loophole?

Ah, so it would work anywhere a draft is common. Yesish. Did the draft itself have something to do with his request for asylum -- For example, could he have asked for it through a National Service organization? Or through a business connection? Or joined the church? Simply assume he applied for political asylum in the normal way at the responsible public authority and finally went to court about it.

Is Peter an East German in West Germany? No. Ost-Berliner in West Berlin? No. Vice versa? No. Trying not to get sent home? Yes. Are his reasons for asking asylum relevant? No. The reasons for making him a CO instead? Yes. "making him" is not really correct, however. Watch out for FAs.

Was he trying to join the army? Trying to avoid it? Trying to exploit a loophole? No or irrelevant to all.

Were the authorities sympathetic to his request for asylum? Could they not grant it for some reason? And granted him CO status instead? Did having CO status give him the same functional benefit as having asylum? Do we have to figure out what COs and asylum-seekers have in common?

Were the authorities sympathetic to his request for asylum? Possibly, irrelevant. Could they not grant it for some reason? At least they didn't, which is why the case went to court. The reason is irrelevant. And granted him CO status instead? No. Did having CO status give him the same functional benefit as having asylum? No. And it is at least unclear whether he had CO status. Do we have to figure out what COs and asylum-seekers have in common? In a way, yes. The relevant attribute has already been mentioned.

He went to court... because they gave/offered him CO status and he wanted asylum instead? Or was someone else the plaintiff? Was he in danger of deportation? Was he a wanted fugitive?

Did anyone involved have a scrund?

If not the court, who offered him CO status or otherwise had authority in his case (ie, who did he ask for asylum)? - Another judge or member of a court? - A member of a military organization? - Or of a paramilitary organization such as police or border patrol? - A politician/political body? - An embassy or consulate?

He went to court... because they gave/offered him CO status No. and he wanted asylum instead? He went to court because he wanted asylum. CO status plays a role only after him going to court. Or was someone else the plaintiff? No, he was the plaintiff. Was he in danger of deportation? Possibly, irrelevant. Was he a wanted fugitive? Probably not, irrelevant.

Did anyone involved have a scrund? No.

If not the court, who offered him CO status or otherwise had authority in his case (ie, who did he ask for asylum)? It was the court. "Offered" is not correct, however.- Another judge or member of a court? - A member of a military organization? - Or of a paramilitary organization such as police or border patrol? - A politician/political body? - An embassy or consulate?

Hint 1: The course of action, from his point of viev is: He applies for political asylum at the public authority responsible for such cases. His application is denied, and he goes to court about it. After some proceedings he is delivered a court decision saying he is recognised as a CO.

Hint 2: This is much easier than you think. No legal or political tricks involved.

Was it the same court that denied that asylum request as recognized him as a CO? Or was he perhaps a dodge drafter from country A seeking asylum in country B and after being denied asylum, country A recognized him as a CO?

Was it the same court that denied that asylum request as recognized him as a CO? Only one court and only one court decision is involved. The court decision says he is recognised as a CO. Denying the request for asylum was an administrative decision. Or was he perhaps a draft dodger from country A seeking asylum in country B and after being denied asylum, country A recognized him as a CO? No.

Was something input into a computer? If so, was it numerical or wordy in nature? Then saved in the wrong place? Failed to save? Was an operation started? GIGO relevant? Did anyone relevant have a scrund?

Was something input into a computer? Yes. If so, was it numerical or wordy in nature? Both is possible. Then saved in the wrong place? No. Failed to save? No. Was an operation started? Yes. GIGO relevant? Yes. Did anyone relevant have a scrund? No.

German language relevant? The information given to the computer was correct? Was that which the computer put out correct given the input? (i.e. did the operation execute like it was supposed to?) Did the computer scan something? And mis-OCR it?

German language relevant? No. This would work with any written language.The information given to the computer was correct? No. Was that which the computer put out correct given the input? Yes. (i.e. did the operation execute like it was supposed to?) So, yes.Did the computer scan something? No. And mis-OCR it? No.

Was the human error small/easily made? But since the computer only does what it's told without reasoning, the result became this big foul-up? Did the court not question the output of the computer? Were neccessary checks and verifications not in place/not done?

Was the human error small/easily made? Yes. But since the computer only does what it's told without reasoning, the result became this big foul-up? Yesish. Reasoning alone probably wouldn't have helped much however. Did the court not question the output of the computer? Yes. Were neccessary checks and verifications not in place/not done? Yes.

Was the error in entering the person's name? No. nationality / citizenship? No. criminal record? No. refugee status? In a way. pacifist status? In a way. army record? No. belonging to some group? In a way.

If anyone still wants to solve this, he or she should ask questions now, or else I will spoil it.

Last hints:

1. Lawsuits about political asylum were really common. 2. Lawsuits about conscientous objection were really common. 3. Text processing systems usually include special functions for really common tasks.

This is late 1980s, right? Was the data being entered into a plain text document? a rich text document? a spreadsheet? Was the computer running Windows? If so: was the text processor MS Word? / Notepad? Was there some problem with copying/cutting/pasting? saving? opening a document? formatting?

This is late 1980s, right? Yes.Was the data being entered into a plain text document? a rich text document? Not directly into a document, but... - the result was a text document. Probably rich text, but not really relevant. a spreadsheet? No.Was the computer running Windows? Irrelevant. If so: was the text processor MS Word? / Notepad? Not Notepad, not sure whether it would have worked with MS Word back then (since when it does it even exist?). Assume some specialised application, maybe developed by a governmental data centre.Was there some problem with copying/cutting/pasting? Pasting is real close. saving? opening a document? formatting? No to the rest.

Hotkeys relevant? Not exactly hotkeys I think, but something alike. Did someone press the wrong key combination, resulting in the wrong standard text being automatically inserted? YES! You got it. And then didn't check it? Exactly. So, finally I can write a

== SPOILER ==

Back in the eighties, two very common types of lawsuits in Germany were those of asylum seekers on the one hand and conscientous objectors on the other hand both being denied their requests by the authorities and going to court about it. In both cases, the administrative courts were competent to hear the cases, and with the onset of electronic data processing in the judiciary they had standard texts for common court orders in these areas which could be automatically inserted into documents by entering a certain codenumber. Well, one day a court clerk carelessly entered the wrong number, and the judge obviously didn't read the text of the decision before signing it. The result was an asylum seeker getting a court decicion which told him he was recognised as a conscientous objector.

Add Your Message Here

Post:

Username:

Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.